Printable View
[QUOTE=Tiny12;428054]The negative correlation between real per capita GDP and wealth inequality is misleading because as countries become more prosperous, inequality tends to decrease. That's the reason for the correlation, not because communist, socialist or strongly redistributive policies create wealthier countries.[/QUOTE]Then how come all prosperous countries have progressive income tax systems?
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 428058]Dickhead, I was just throwing out Greek government pensions as an example. Here's why some people think they were excessive,
[url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions[/url][/QUOTE]So the complaint is primarily excessive LENGTH or duration of the pension, and secondarily the % of income. I am not bothered by 80% of former income although most financial planners say you can live on 70% (but that is based on the US tax system and I have no idea what the Greeks do). And as far as this goes:
"civil servants in Greece employed before 1992 can retire after 35 years service, if they have reached 58"
US civil servants can retire at 55 with 30 years of service, although they would only get 33% of their salary under the Federal Employees' Retirement System, which also has a 401k component. That started in 1984. Civil servants employed before that date would be getting I believe it is 70% of their salaries. Maybe it was 60. Anyway, not that dissimilar. For sure I think that is awfully early although I (mostly) retired at 55 (with no pension). And bear in mind that police, firefighters, military, and maybe some other groups get pensions after as little as 20 years. I don't like cops anyway but I don't see why they should get a pension after 20 years.
So I am comfortable with pension reform, but I don't think the retirement age for Social Security should be raised for those who have already started contributing to it. That is changing the rules in mid-game. If they want to change them going forward that is fine. 67 is already pretty old, though. Everybody freaks about "Social Security solvency" but if it has to be sustained with revenues from the general funds that is just how it will have to be. It is already completely fucked that SS is taxable, since the contribution was already taxed. That is just heinous and has to go. Either that or give me a deduction for AGI for the contribution.
Congressional pensions are excessive as well.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428059]Then how come all prosperous countries have progressive income tax systems?[/QUOTE]Why do the most prosperous countries countries in the world, with a few exceptions, have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a less progressive income tax system. Qatar, Macau, Singapore, Kuwait, Brunei, Hong Kong, Switzerland, UAE, USA, San Marino, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Lichtenstein. See
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita/[url]
O. K, you can attribute a number of those on the list to special circumstances. But not Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and the USA. Actually income taxes in the U.S. are reasonably progressive, but not as progressive as Western Europe and Japan. And Western Europe and Japan aren't as prosperous as the U.S., with a couple of exceptions like Luxembourg and Norway.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 428056]And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph. D.
Professor of Economics.
University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.[/QUOTE]Though I am far from rich, I am certainly considering overseas retirement. Sooner, than later if BO is reelected. Maybe Romney can fix things, but I believe we are too far down the road.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428053]If one wants to look at a possible association between trickle down economics and poor economic performance, one would look at things like increased wealth inequality, both from an asset standpoint and from an income standpoint,[/quote]I've spent a ton of time debunking this and Gini. Since the time that man began to keep written records, there has never been a successful, long-lived society that lacked income disparity or that had flat income distribution."Wealth inequality" how and why could that ever be a valid measure of anything (anything that has value, of course) in a free society with a relatively free economy? Why should we compare the poorest in this country to the richest? Do they both possess the same job skills? Educational background? Work experience? Business connections? If they don't possess the same potential to add value, why it a relevant discussion? In a scenario where you make millions and I am scraping by, how would that discrepancy negatively impact me? We are not competing for the same jobs, the economy is not a zero-sum game and 'giving' me money won't necessarily make me any more productive (although, I would likely stimulate the top line of my local liquor store).
Big, lofty, pie-in-the-sky allegories of right (liberal think) and wrong (any other type of think) are generally 99% bullsh*t and 1% fabrication.
[quote=]and the tendency of supply siders to favor monetary policy over fiscal policy to smooth the business cycle.[/quote]Looks like Obama's crony capitalists are all supply-siders, given the riches that Obama is bestowing upon them via this misguided monetary policy.
I have to go some place so, I will respond to the rest, later.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 428061]Why do the most prosperous countries countries in the world, with a few exceptions, have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a less progressive income tax system. Qatar, Macau, Singapore, Kuwait, Brunei, Hong Kong, Switzerland, UAE, USA, San Marino, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Lichtenstein. See.
[url][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_[/url] (PPP) _per_capita/
[url]
O. K, you can attribute a number of those on the list to special circumstances. But not Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and the USA. Actually income taxes in the USA are reasonably progressive, but not as progressive as Western Europe and Japan. And Western Europe and Japan aren't as prosperous as the USA, with a couple of exceptions like Luxembourg and Norway.[/QUOTE]Certainly the US has a progressive income tax. Not only that, but its economy has performed relatively better when the top rates were higher than when they were lower. I can't explain why that is, but it's true. Some of it comes from the high growth post WW II period. I do think you can point to special circumstances in the case of Hong Kong because it has some special trade preferences and barriers. Mostly it's strategic location, and oil, that contributes to countries on your list, but I don't want to live in any of those places on your list. Gibraltar certainly benefits from special circumstances (and isn't a country).
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 428063]I've spent a ton of time debunking this and Gini. Since the time that man began to keep written records, there has never been a successful, long-lived society that lacked income disparity or that had flat income distribution."Wealth inequality" how and why could that ever be a valid measure of anything (anything that has value, of course) in a free society with a relatively free economy? Why should we compare the poorest in this country to the richest? Do they both possess the same job skills? Educational background? Work experience? Business connections? If they don't possess the same potential to add value, why it a relevant discussion? In a scenario where you make millions and I am scraping by, how would that discrepancy negatively impact me? We are not competing for the same jobs, the economy is not a zero-sum game and 'giving' me money won't necessarily make me any more productive (although, I would likely stimulate the top line of my local liquor store).
Big, lofty, pie-in-the-sky allegories of right (liberal think) and wrong (any other type of think) are generally 99% bullsh*t and 1% fabrication.
Looks like Obama's crony capitalists are all supply-siders, given the riches that Obama is bestowing upon them via this misguided monetary policy.
I have to go some place so, I will respond to the rest, later.[/QUOTE]The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428053]You give a poor person a $500 tax rebate and they spend it right away, which gives the economic stimulus in the short run. If you give it to a rich person, they might invest it but they most likely won't consume it. So that might be beneficial in the long run but it blunts the short-term effectiveness.[/QUOTE]Exactly. And the key word is [i][b]might[/b][/i].
And herein lies the fundamental flaw in Republican trickle-down theory. It's assumed that helping the wealthy (individuals or corporations) maximize their wealth, and their investment profit potential, will lead to investment that creates jobs and prosperity.
It's really a strategy of [i][b]hope[/b][/i].
And it doesn't work very well. Some of the wealth trickles down. Some does not. Individuals and corporations sit on their cash, or invest in financial instruments or in other countries. Wall Street is already a huge parasite on the US economy. Low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, for example, only facilitate the transfer of wealth to Wall Street and wealthy investors. Republicans can't deny this. But they will defend it. Either by saying "But it's their money" (which is basically an admission it's not good economic policy). Or by blaming others, such as the government, for the failure of the wealthy to invest in a way that creates jobs. And their solution will always be the same, that basically we need to kiss their ass even more and hope for that wealth to trickle down.
World's Rich Are Hoarding $10 Trillion in Cash
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/[/url]
I just had an interesting discussion. Somebody asked me if I had to vote for either Romney or Bush II, for whom would I vote. Irrelevant, but: Romney IQ 15 points Bush II IQ; Romney worked for a living. Educational BACKGROUNDS pretty similar but Romney outperformed. Romney no youthful DUIs or cocaine. Versus: Mormonism very scary. Romney evasive about taxes, both his own and his plans. Romney seems to have changed his position more than Dubya.
To a moderate Democrat such as myself, Romney is more palatable than Bush II so if Romney wins I will be less disappointed than I was in 2004. Bush and Romney seem very personally wooden to me as a voter, but Romney is moderately more likeable. Somebody made the point that Romney's changes in position could be preferable to maintaining untenable positions and that was a point well-taken.
I am extremely concerned about separation of church and state under Romney. I don't see him as being monger friendly.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428065]The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.[/QUOTE]Dickhead, I'm not sure that's true. See for example, [url]http://time.dufe.edu.cn/spti/article/barro/pinequalitygrw.pdf[/url], which came to a conflicting conclusion with respect to growth in wealthier countries. Please don't actually read the whole paper. I feel guilty I haven't finished the paper on corporate taxation yet.
Here's a scatter plot of GDP per capita vs. Gini Index. It's L shaped.
[url]http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index[/url]
What I think's going on, there are a number of poor countries that are very unequal. One explanation in the paper above is that a country may be switching from an agricultural to industrial economy. Or if you want to look for less benign explanations, maybe you have crony capitalism, poor education, politicians and government employees that steal, and government programs like fuel subsidies that help the better off, all of which are common in poor, unequal countries, countries that have highest Gini indices. But if you look at countries with low to medium Gini indices, up to the level of the United States, there's not an obvious correlation either way between GDP per capita and Gini index. By the way, if you adjust the Gini coefficient in the U.S. for taxes, entitlements and transfer payments like food stamps, it comes down considerably -- liberals prefer to look at the unadjusted number because they think it proves some kind of a point.
The best way is to reduce inequality is through education and eliminating government handouts to the relatively wealthy, be they Wall Street bankers or corn farmers. Not by taxing investment and savings and businesses and successful workers at very high rates as promoted by a couple of posters here. Walleye has a good point IMHO, the system should promote hard work, thrift, etc, not penalize it, and that will promote growth and prosperity for all.
About another of your posts, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to recognize that there are other things going on that affect GDP growth, besides the maximum marginal personal income tax rate. 91% tax rates were not the cause of strong economic growth in the USA.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428064]I don't want to live in any of those places on your list.[/QUOTE]Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;428082]Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.[/QUOTE]How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;428077]About another of your posts, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to recognize that there are other things going on that affect GDP growth, besides the maximum marginal personal income tax rate. 91% tax rates were not the cause of strong economic growth in the USA.[/QUOTE]And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.
Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.
I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:
"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."
If I recall correctly, criticism of Barro's work (to the extent it existed, which it always does) revolved around the quintilization that he refers to. I love where he says,"This relationship is not obvious from the scatter plot, although one can discern such a curve after staring at the diagram for a long time." Never heard a Harvard guy talk like that. Anyway the r-squared is very low. I have no problem believing this to be true: "For growth, there is an indication that inequality retards growth in poor countries but encourages growth in richer places." And then the sign change or instability in the poorer countries is likely from drastic changes in the regimes.
In the figures at the end of the paper, I don't see where he used income inequality as an independent variable. Did he throw that out because the r-squared was too low? The size of the inflation impact surprised me. I knew it was negative. I'd like to see an individual regression on that, as opposed to being part of a multiple one.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;428077]The best way is to reduce inequality is through education and eliminating government handouts to the relatively wealthy, be they Wall Street bankers or corn farmers.[/QUOTE]I agree with that completely. All agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers must go. I suggest a 5-7 year phaseout to allow for factor utilization to adjust. But that Horatio Alger stuff about hard work and thrift under capitalism is bullshit. It's all about the class you were born into. 96% of the time. I know plenty of hard working, thrifty people who have worked all their lives just to be poor. I also know a lot of rich jack-offs. In fact, my goal was to be a rich jack-off but I fell a bit short of the rich part.
[QUOTE=Member #2041;428084]And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.[/QUOTE]Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;428086]Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.[/QUOTE]The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I[/url]
[QUOTE=Member #2041;428083]How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.[/QUOTE]Unh unh unh. Data mining. BAD #2041. Now you are beating up on the straw man. Tiny did not mention he would live in any of those countries. Don't fudge the data to make your points. Go to your room.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;428090]Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.[/QUOTE]It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.
[QUOTE=Rc Collins; 428091]The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I[/url][/QUOTE]OK, I rescind the free round the world cruise, but the rest stands
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428065]The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.[/QUOTE]Why would I try to debunk something that is a fact of nature? The inequality of outcomes is as important to the perpetuation of mankind as are water and air. Someone's financial successful does not ascribe one's value to society. Many, many people compete for things that are non-pecuniary, everyday. However, if there is nothing for which to compete, mankind will take a pass. So, why on earth do liberals spend so much time trying to reprogram human nature at its core (which has and will always fail) as opposed to shepherding and guiding it?
Why is income inequality bad? That is income inequality, not poverty. They aren't the same thing (BTW).
The correlation between income inequality and GDP growth is derivative of the fact that in order for GDP to grow, someone has to be making some more money. Gee, that really seems evil. We should make capitalism illegal (that isn't directed at you DH, I know you are not completely lost).
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428093]It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.[/QUOTE]Higher tax rate regimes, at least in US history, have had a disproportionately negative impact on lower and middle income families (check it out in the Commerce Dept's data. Better use them now, before I get in office and eliminate them). Therefore, I would posit that, in truth, the inverse of your statement would be more factual.
[QUOTE=Dickhead; 428088]I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:
"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."[/QUOTE]Barrio is a writer? I thought that was Spanish for neighborhood and that by using the different names and my tourista map, I could find mas privados.
*Please don't make me point out that this was an attempt at humor.
Trump is a buffoon. A rich buffoon but nonetheless, a buffoon. However, I don't think he is stupid nor do I think he does things, especially very public things, without considerable thought. He's always had the ability to do something like this, that is to say he could make a public offer like this to draw the president out (birth certificate, college application, etc) or offer a bounty to people in a position to provide legally obtained materials. However, I don't think any of us (I'll even include Esten and Member #whatever) are dumb enough to think that such an act would have any lasting value. It is cheap headline-grabbing tactic that has no legs. I don't see any way that Trump's ploy could effect the polls in any way. I doubt Trump's assessment of the situation is any different. Why then why would he do it? I'm guessing that he always known that he had the ability to suck the wind out of a day's news cycle, if and when, he thought such an act was needed. I think he kept his powder dry (less than two weeks until Obama gets his pink slip) just in case some scum-sucking worm like Gloria Albad (I don't want her name to appear here, she'd probably look for chicas to represent to get back pay based on US rates) popped her head out of the anal cavern within which she was hiding. I suspect that it was just an attempt to push Gloria's October "Surprise" (her OS is a surprise in the same vein as a hershey squirt is a surprise) off the list of top stories in the news cycle. If you can force a news item onto the shelf for 48 hours, you might well kill it (unless it has something to do with dereliction of duty, resulting in the deaths of four Americans).
As for Gloria Alscum's big surprise, it is a dud. I think she hung all of her hopes on the Romney campaign fighting the unsealing of the record. Oops, small miscalculation. As for the 'explosive' content, what a crock. Nobody cares about some lady that is still bitter about her divorce settlement. 25 years later. The American public doesn't have the attention span, nor the interest in a valuation analysis of a private company, circa the late 80's. It must be like having sand in her panties that Romney is squeaky clean.
This is a hot one. Apparently Obama, on the record, told a group of 6 year olds that Romney was a "bullshitter". Much to his credit, Jeremy, a very bright 6 year old responded "Mr President, it takes one to know one"
I think Obama should find out what medications Christina is on and start taking them pronto.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;428060]So the complaint is primarily excessive LENGTH or duration of the pension, and secondarily the % of income. I am not bothered by 80% of former income although most financial planners say you can live on 70% (but that is based on the US tax system and I have no idea what the Greeks do).[/QUOTE]My issue with government pensions is not that there shouldn't be any, however, there should never be any "defined benefit" pensions for public sector employees. They can never be justified (I. E. Rationally quantified as sustainable) in any real-world environment. In order for "defined benefit" pensions to be appropriate for public sector employees, there would need to be a guarantee that economic activity will never drop below the 'current' level, population won't decline, the size and productivity of the workforce will never decline, etc.
Because governments (municipal, state and federal) are generally poor representatives of the citizens' best interests, they should not be allowed to enter into situations within which the can't properly represent the people (I. E. Collective bargaining, etc.). Am I the only one that thinks that allowing government employees to negotiate government employee benefits, on be half of the citizens, with the unions (that represent govt employees) is rife with conflicts of interest?
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 428099]This is a hot one. Apparently Obama, on the record, told a group of 6 year olds that Romney was a "bullshitter". Much to his credit, Jeremy, a very bright 6 year old responded " Mr President, it takes one to know one"
I think Obama should find out what medications Christina is on and start taking them pronto.[/QUOTE]I suspect he is already taking PMS medications. He's probably going through Obamapause. That could explain why he has no command of the facts, lies constantly and always seems to be on the rag.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;428096]Higher tax rate regimes, at least in US history, have had a disproportionately negative impact on lower and middle income families (check it out in the Commerce Dept's data. Better use them now, before I get in office and eliminate them). Therefore, I would posit that, in truth, the inverse of your statement would be more factual.[/QUOTE]Are you talking about the average rate or the top marginal rate? I was exaggerating, of course, but my point was that when we had 90% and so forth briefly during or right after WWII (I forget which) , a very tiny % paid the highest rate. There were more different rates at that point, too.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;428086]Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.[/QUOTE]Probably because Trump is a well-known liar, and there's no reason to assume he'd actually make good on his commitment here, just as he reneged on his promise to actually have some sort of newsworthy announcement in the first place.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Romney looks like Hope and Change and Obama looks like the Grunge that Stole Christmas.
Whoops, the polls are saying a lot of people think that way.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 428145]Is it just me or does anyone else think that Romney looks like Hope and Change and Obama looks like the Grunge that Stole Christmas.
Whoops, the polls are saying a lot of people think that way.[/QUOTE]I think the people have finally determined that the emperor has no clothes.
[QUOTE=Tequila Tim;428154]I think the people have finally determined that the emperor has no clothes.[/QUOTE]Give him a second term and he won't be the only one with no clothes. But right now, things are trending much better. Even if most people won't spend the time to really learn what he wants to do in his second term, at least they understand that he really doesn't understand anything other than asking the government for handouts / grants.
News is breaking right now that we had the mortar locations attaching the Libyian consulate laser targeted and they were called off. Ooooooops! What ya want to bet the idiot commander in chief didn't have the balls to pull the trigger. If this info pans out, and I am sure that it will, we can call this election over and out! Get ready for a slaughter Esten! I told ya all years ago but most didn't listen. He how laughs last always laughs best, and gets an all paid night at Madahos! IALOTFLMAO. Bye bye Obamanation! Monger on dudes. Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann;428201]News is breaking right now that we had the mortar locations attaching the Libyian consulate laser targeted and they were called off. Ooooooops! What ya want to bet the idiot commander in chief didn't have the balls to pull the trigger. If this info pans out, and I am sure that it will, we can call this election over and out! Get ready for a slaughter Esten! I told ya all years ago but most didn't listen. He how laughs last always laughs best, and gets an all paid night at Madahos! IALOTFLMAO. Bye bye Obamanation! Monger on dudes. Toymann[/QUOTE]The problem is that the liberal media has and continues to completely ignore the entire Libya story, so outside of the few million informed individuals who watch something other than the lame stream media, the rest of the voting electorate doesn't even know there is an unfolding story.
I personally suspect that the full story will reveal that as our Libyian Consulate was under attack, as these reports were coming in, during those hours when we needed an executive decision from the Commander-in-Chief to call in reinforcements from our air bases in the region, Obama instead decided to get on a plane and go to a fund raiser in Nevada.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 428203]The problem is that the liberal media has and continues to completely ignore the entire Libya story, so outside of the few million informed individuals who watch something other than the lame stream media, the rest of the voting electorate doesn't even know there is an unfolding story.
I personally suspect that the full story will reveal that as our Libyian Consulate was under attack, as these reports were coming in, during those hours when we needed an executive decision from the Commander-in-Chief to call in reinforcements from our air bases in the region, Obama instead decided to get on a plane and go to a fund raiser in Nevada.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Actually, this story has been way OVER-played by the media. Terrorists attacked our embassy, and killed 4 Americans. For several days, we got mixed, confused information about it due to faulty intelligence and chaos on the ground in Libya. All in all, that was worthy of about a week's worth of news coverage. There was no executive decision to be made, because the event was long over by the time we had any reliable information about it, and there is exactly ZERO evidence that we had any actionable, non-contradictory information about this while it was happening. It's of course worth asking why we had an intelligence failure, and how we can prevent this from happening again, but that needs to be done in a deliberate, non-sensational, non-political environment if we want to actually get that question answered in a constructive manner. Which is exactly the opposite of what Republicans are trying to do with it. It is decidedly NOT a partisan political issue, and anyone who attempts to make it one is is demonstrating that they don't actually have the nation's interest at heart.
[quote=IBD Editorials]Benghazi Consulate Could Have Used Marines With Bayonets.
Scandal: More than six hours after terrorists attacked our consulate, former Navy SEALs manned a blood-soaked machine gun to defend USA territory. Meanwhile Apache helicopters sat on the ground in Italy.
At 4 am Local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight after being wounded.
During that eternity, Woods and Doherty might have wondered between gunfire and explosions where the military, with bases strewn across Europe, was. USA forces were indeed being moved like chess pieces as the attack unfolded, but none came to their aid because no one gave the order.
President Obama, perhaps preoccupied with his upcoming Las Vegas fundraiser, met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at 5 pm ET, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack.
He could have given the order but did not, even after an email, in which the al-Qaida-tied group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, arrived at 6:07 pm ET to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room.
A Special Operations force went from central Europe to Naval Air Station Sigonella in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi. F-16s and Apache helicopters remained parked and unused at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy. Two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean Sea were moved off the coast of Libya on the day of the attack but were never used.
The question is: Why not?
Some suggest that sending nearby AC-130 gunships or Apaches would have been futile because in the chaos they couldn't have identified the attackers and might have hit innocents. A few well-timed machine gun bursts at nowhere in particular would have been sufficient to disperse the jihadists. We know there was no protest mob in the way and certainly we could have plucked those two heroic SEALs off the annex roof.
But to send help would have acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. It would have destroyed Team Obama's campaign mantra that Osama bin Laden was dead, al-Qaida was destroyed and the Arab Spring was in full bloom. Better to blame a filmmaker and his obscure video.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pushed the video fraud, and whose employee, U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice, went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat that shameful and colossal lie, defended Obama's inaction in the face of terror by saying,"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence" of a terrorist attack.
And the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, was "workplace violence."
When terrorists attacked the USA Consulate in Benghazi and killed the USA ambassador and three other Americans, no Marines were deployed to protect them on the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet a Marine security detachment was guarding our embassy in Barbados.
"The last two casualties occurred well over six hours after the initial attack," Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted."It is disappointing to hear that our national command authorities failed to try to reinforce the consulate with timely air assets, and that a consulate located in one of the most dangerous regions in the world was so unsecured."
Rather than sitting in the Oval Office to tell the American people how and why four Americans died at the hands of an attack by an al-Qaida-linked group, our less-than-optimal president yukked it up with Jay Leno Wednesday night after appearing with David Letterman two days after the attack, worrying about nothing more than his re-election and demonstrating that even after four years of on-the-job training how eminently unqualified he is to be our commander in chief.
Why, Mr. President, weren't there Marines with bayonets in Benghazi?
[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102512-630874-no-marines-with-bayonets-at-benghazi.htm[/url][/quote]I apologize for the copy and paste, but I think it's important.
[QUOTE=Punter 127;428205]I apologize for the copy and paste, but I think it's important.[/QUOTE]I agree, it's important to see what sort of stupidity passes for right-wing editorializing these days. Thanks for showing us a prime example of this sort of idiocy.
Do you or the editorial writer seriously think that cc'ing the White House situation room on an e-mail means that said e-mail actually gets read by the President's immediate security team without being put through massive amounts of filtration and analysis first? Because the entire premise of that nonsensical e-mail is that since the White House situation room was cc'd on an e-mail, that represents real-time actionable intelligence, and I find it hard to believe that ANYBODY is actually stupid enough to believe that. although perhaps Punter 127 might convince me otherwise.
Investors' Business Daily is not exactly an unbiased source given the ideology of its founder. But then I am not sure there are any unbiased sources any more, which is part of the problem.
This Libya story is a sinister plot of brave Americans sacrficing their lifes while their government turns its back refusing to come to their aid. All because Obama has ulterior motives that prevents Obama from acting in the best interests of America.
Obama's ulterior motive is a core belief that America is evil and that America is the root cause of international tensions. For Obama to provide military aid to Americans being brutalized in Libya would require Obama to admit that his 'apology tour' through the middle East resolved nothing and admit that the same forces that harmed us in the past are still seeking to harm us. This is something Obama cannot do. To Obama, America is the villain and America should apologize and accept violence directed towards us as a just response for America's sins.
It is no wonder that Obama blamed the violence in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer. This fits in nicely with Obama's belief that we are to blame and that we are provoking these assaults.